[jdev] Re: discovering extensions without disco

[Robert McQueen]

Gary Burd wrote:
>> As long as GT doesn't change the allowable email addresses, you're safe.
> 
> You are not safe. Google is regulary adding new domains to Google Talk
> as part of the "Gmail for Domains" beta test. See
> https://www.google.com/hosted/Home for more info.

Right, I always knew that strcmping server names or JIDs to decide how
to behave was totally wrong, but if the server isn't service
discoverable there aren't many alternative ways to discover features.

>> apart from GT not advertizing its extension in disco,
> 
> Google's private blocking extension is not advertised because Google
> does not encourage the use of the extension.  Google does not
> encourage the use of the blocking extension because it overlaps with
> RFC 3921.

Even if we're not doing google:roster, then there are other places where
we need to know if the server has extra features (google:relay auth
token, off the record, mail notifications...) or does not quite behave
according to the standard in places (<presence type="unavailable">
behaves like invisible, so the server sends us presence, messages and
iqs... something like <feature
var='presence-unavailable-behaves-like-invisible'/>). It would be very
nice if you could respond to discovery requests for at least some of
these behaviours... :)

>> we should make simple iq-based protocol for blocking and going
>> invisible, as a server-side profile of privacy lists.
> 
> + 1

+1 too, but in the meantime, how are we supposed to block users on
Google Talk?

Regards,
Rob